UKIP Parliamentary candidate is rude about a resident, and refuses to retract comments

Councillors do not always agree with their residents. However, until this week I have not heard a councillor publicly describe a resident as “nosey” , “interfering“, and “a complainer“.

Cllr Floyd Waterworth’s (UKIP, Blenheim Park) outburst at Development Control Committee was challenged by Labour members present, and he declined their offer to retract what he said.

Thus, it appears that UKIP Parliamentary candidates see it as acceptable to be rude about residents in a public forum.

As one councillor later commented: “Don’t go to UKIP if you have problem neighbours! Don’t bother with UKIP if your neighbour is in breach of planning rules.”

Cllr Waterworth tried to vote down a recommendation to take enforcement action at a property which had a legitimate extension and conservatory, but added high level decking and a pergola which fell outside of the consent.

This is not the first time Cllr Waterworth has been belligerent in Planning Committee. His is normally a silent presence, perhaps mindful of Mark Twain’s advice.

If Cllr Waterworth thinks it acceptable to be rude about residents and to not defend their best interests then I hope he goes back to his old strategy of saying nought.

2 Responses to UKIP Parliamentary candidate is rude about a resident, and refuses to retract comments

Cllr Waterworth should have read his paperwork properly. In the report (3.2) it states….’A visit by the planning officer in May 2014 (in connection with an application for modifications to the rear extension on the southern flank) showed that a raised decking had been erected to the rear of the new conservatory. At this stage photographs were taken show that there was no canopy over this decking.’

The resident, to whom Cllr Waterworth refers, did not complain about the legitimate build, even if they had, the planning process allows for this and this is part of the Committee’s deliberations.
It is only later(Aug) that a complaint is received about the canopy and the addition of a wall. The promptness of the response from the planning team and the decision to photograph the decking in the first place, suggests that inspectors were not entirely happy with the build. They advised the owner that it would be unlikely to get permission and he was requested to remove them. A subsequent visit in regard to varying the exisiting permission for the extension,(but no variance for the decking and pergola) found them still in place. Thus, the owner, with explicit advice from the OFFICERS, chose not to adhere.

Later in the report, it is stated that ‘The raised decking itself is considered unacceptable because of the possibility it gives for overlooking [neighbour’s address] ………..The height and depth of the structure is considered to make it unacceptably overbearing for the occupants of [neighbour’s address].

My response is that this is not a case of the nosEY, but those who could be nosedON.

(Also that it contravenes a number of SBC’s and National Planning Policies.

What is the point of being on the Planning Committee if you don’t understand that? )